Anyone remember the really early Xilinx FPGAs?

Hi all,

I'm trying to put together a picture of how Xilinx FPGAs evolved, from
the XC2000 series up to the latest Virtex-4. Finding information on the
early series is nigh impossible, however, so if anyone remembers the
XC2000/3000 series and can answer *any* of the questions below, it'd be
much appreciated!

1) When first introduced in 1985, which of the XC2000-series devices
(2064, 2018) were actually made available?

2) When first introduced in 1987, which of the five XC3000-series
devices (i.e. 3020, 3030, 3042, 3064 and 3090) were actually available?
When did the 3090 finally arrive?

3) What year were each of the XC3000A, XC3000L and XC3100 families
introduced in?

Thanks,

Mike

Mike,

I was a user then, so I will try (to answer).

See below,

Austin

> 1) When first introduced in 1985, which of the XC2000-series devices
> (2064, 2018) were actually made available?

I saw a board with one of each on them in 1987.  I know both went into 
production, and I also know they were declared obsolete (after a last 
time buy) the year I joined Xilinx (1998).  I believe the parts were 
shipped for 15 years, total (I found a tube of 2018's in a file cabinet 
only a year ago...).  You can still obtain small quantities over the web 
at various obsolete parts houses.

> 2) When first introduced in 1987, which of the five XC3000-series
> devices (i.e. 3020, 3030, 3042, 3064 and 3090) were actually available?
> When did the 3090 finally arrive?

We started with the 3030, and graduated  immediately to the 3042 for 
many of the designs we started in 1990.  Couldn't convince my boss to 
use FPGAs until then.

I am not sure, but the original family did not include the 3090.  It was 
added later.

> 3) What year were each of the XC3000A, XC3000L and XC3100 families
> introduced in?

I believe the A was the first process shrink, and that happened in 1995. 
  Never used the 3100 until much later, as I expect that was another 
process shrink, and the specs changed, so the part number changed, too.

Mike wrote:

> 1) When first introduced in 1985, which of the XC2000-series devices
> (2064, 2018) were actually made available?

2064 I think. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=fpga+xilinx+2064+xact

       --mt

Since I am the oldest Xilinx veteran here ( Jan 88), I can answer with
authority:

The first part, in 85, was the 2064 (named after the number of CLBs in
the matrix), followed soon by the 2018, named after the (contentious
forever) number of gate equivalents.
The 3000 series was introduced in the following sequence (sorry Austin,
I was there):
3020 in late 87, 3090 was the second (!) in mid 88. 3042 came soon
after and becamemost popular, then (early 89?) the 3062 as the
last-born and forever least popular.
The 0riginal 3090 die was exactly 100 square-millimeters, but it was
not 10x10 since we wanted to fit two masks into the biggest possible
square reticle, so it was something like 12.5 x 8 mm, and we proudly
depicted it (to scale) on the back of the data book. Xilinx has,
forever since, always pushed manufacturing to offer the biggest
possible top-end device, because we know that there are designers
salivating for something even bigger, and the unavoidably high price is
grudgingly accepted when there is no alternative.

Process shrinks were done more quietly in those days, since they did
not affect the user with a change in supply voltage. Those were the 5-V
days, when everybody used the same Vcc  :-)

3000A was a functional superset, and 3100 offered higher speed through
"pumped gates", internally generating a higher Vcc for certain circuit
detailss. Also a new top-end, the 3195.
I wrote a candid comparison of the various 3000 families and published
it at the front of the family datasheet, with an innovative
3-dimensional picture...
See:   http://direct.xilinx.com/bvdocs/publications/3000.pdf
Peter Alfke, Xilinx Applications

Many of your questions are answered at the following URL.
(Also may answer some questions you have not asked).

   http://www.fpga-faq.org/compare/build_form.cgi


I have also answered to the best of my knowledge below:

On 13 Oct 2005 13:04:40 -0700, "Mike" <almost_rational@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>1) When first introduced in 1985, which of the XC2000-series devices
>(2064, 2018) were actually made available?

2064 first (64 LCA Cells), 2018 next (1800 gate equiv. the start of the
great gate counting debate)

>2) When first introduced in 1987, which of the five XC3000-series
>devices (i.e. 3020, 3030, 3042, 3064 and 3090) were actually available?
>When did the 3090 finally arrive?

3020 was first, then I think 3090, then the rest.

>3) What year were each of the XC3000A, XC3000L and XC3100 families
>introduced in?

See the URL above

>Thanks,
>
>Mike

Have fun,
Philip


Philip Freidin
Fliptronics

I stand corrected....

I was a customer then.

Austin

Peter Alfke wrote:

> Since I am the oldest Xilinx veteran here ( Jan 88), I can answer with
> authority:
> 
> The first part, in 85, was the 2064 (named after the number of CLBs in
> the matrix), followed soon by the 2018, named after the (contentious
> forever) number of gate equivalents.
> The 3000 series was introduced in the following sequence (sorry Austin,
> I was there):
> 3020 in late 87, 3090 was the second (!) in mid 88. 3042 came soon
> after and becamemost popular, then (early 89?) the 3062 as the
> last-born and forever least popular.
> The 0riginal 3090 die was exactly 100 square-millimeters, but it was
> not 10x10 since we wanted to fit two masks into the biggest possible
> square reticle, so it was something like 12.5 x 8 mm, and we proudly
> depicted it (to scale) on the back of the data book. Xilinx has,
> forever since, always pushed manufacturing to offer the biggest
> possible top-end device, because we know that there are designers
> salivating for something even bigger, and the unavoidably high price is
> grudgingly accepted when there is no alternative.
> 
> Process shrinks were done more quietly in those days, since they did
> not affect the user with a change in supply voltage. Those were the 5-V
> days, when everybody used the same Vcc  :-)
> 
> 3000A was a functional superset, and 3100 offered higher speed through
> "pumped gates", internally generating a higher Vcc for certain circuit
> detailss. Also a new top-end, the 3195.
> I wrote a candid comparison of the various 3000 families and published
> it at the front of the family datasheet, with an innovative
> 3-dimensional picture...
> See:   http://direct.xilinx.com/bvdocs/publications/3000.pdf
> Peter Alfke, Xilinx Applications
> 

Here's some more history (from a long term Xilinx user):

There was a time when companies didn't trust any part that didn't have
a second source, so companies would license their designs to other
manufacturers. So Xilinx licensed its designs to AMD, and then later to
ATT. So you could buy a 2064 from AMD, and 3000 series parts from ATT.

In both cases, for various reasons, Xilinx cancelled the agreements.

ATT didn't want to get out of the business, so they made their own
FPGAs, called the Orca family, roughly similar to the XC4000 family.
ATT later became Agere, and Agere later sold the Orca family to
Lattice, where you can still buy it.

Here's some more history from a long time Xilinx user:

There was a time when companies didn't trust any ICs that were not
second sourced (more than one manufacturer). So Xilinx licensed their
designs to AMD, and then later to ATT. You could buy a 2064 from AMD
and later a 3000 series part from ATT.

For various reasons Xilinx cancelled these agreements (there's no doubt
some interesting stories here).

ATT didn't want to get out of the FPGA business so they developed their
own Orca line, roughly equivalent to the XC4000 family. The IC devision
of ATT later spun off to become Agere. Agere later sold the Orca line
to Lattice, where you can still buy it.

Sorry for the double post. The system said it couldn't process my
reply, so I had to retype it from memory. Now I find out it went
through!

To be precise: Xilinx licensed MMI before that company got swallowed up
(there are uglier words for that procedure) by AMD. Soon after that,
Xilinx bought the rights back from AMD (who made a nice profit from the
Xilinx shares...)
For XC4000, ATT was supposed to be the prime manufacturer, not only the
second source.  That really did not work out. We are now much better
off with our friends in Taiwan (UMC) and Japan (Toshiba).
"Second source" seems to be a forgotten word now, and the world is a
better place without it.
Peter Alfke